Michigan Public Policy Survey Restricted Use Datasets

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Version Title: View help for Version Title Spring 2009 - Fall 2016

Name	File Type	Size	Last Modified
MPPS_2009_fall_data_OPENS-REDACTED.xlsx	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet	595.5 KB	05/01/2017 07:41:AM
f09-restricted-codebook.pdf	application/pdf	498.6 KB	02/10/2017 06:44:AM
f09-restricted.csv	text/csv	695.5 KB	05/01/2017 07:42:AM
f09-restricted.dta	application/x-stata	606.2 KB	02/10/2017 06:44:AM
f09-restricted.sav	application/x-spss-sav	573.3 KB	01/25/2017 08:04:AM

To view the citation for the overall project, see http://doi.org/10.3886/E100148V11.

Folder Description

Summary:

The Fall 2009 MPPS wave focused on workforce development and education issues. Additional

batteries of questions focused on Michigan Public Act 312, a potential constitutional convention,

term limits for state policymakers, job approval ratings for the governor and state legislature, and

the federal stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

Scope of Folder

Subject Terms: workforce; education; constitutional convention; term limits; state government; local government; government performance; job approval; stimulus; ARRA

Geographic Coverage: Michigan

Collection Date(s): 10/20/2009 – 12/23/2009 (Fall 2009)

Universe: 3,503 top elected and top appointed officials from all 1,856 Michigan counties, cities, villages, and townships

Data Type(s): survey data

Methodology

Response Rate: 70% by jurisdiction, 48% by individual respondent

Sampling:

The sample for the Fall 2009 MPPS included on average two officials from each of the local

general purpose units of government (83 counties, 277 cities, 256 villages, and 1,240 townships)

in the state of Michigan. The sample frame included, where the position existed and was not

vacant, the top elected and top appointed official in each jurisdiction. For counties, this consisted

of county administrators and board chairs; for cities, mayors and city managers; for villages,

village presidents and managers. Townships are a special case, in that, typically, their governing

officials are all elected. Therefore, in townships, both the elected supervisors and the elected

clerks were administered surveys, as well as the few appointed township managers.

Collection Mode(s): mail questionnaire; web-based survey

Weights:

The Fall 2009 dataset includes two separate weights—one for individual-level and one for

jurisdiction-level analyses—that should be used to account for nonresponse at the individual and

jurisdictional levels.

Unit(s) of Observation: Jurisdiction, Individual

Related Publications

Request Information

This material is sensitive in nature and is available as restricted data through ICPSR. Users are required to apply for access, will be required to pay a fee, and will experience a wait time before access is given. The material will be distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR does not check or process the material.

Published Versions

Export Metadata

Dublin Core

DDI 2.5

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.